Laws always have their exceptions and the fact is that he is accused not just of taking drugs but of organizing a drug ring:

The only area he felt the UCI might have an argument is on the length of time it has taken to Usada to apply sanctions. Sport usually has an eight-year statute of limitations.Nevertheless, the lawyer feels Usada could win this debate as well given it is likely to argue that Armstrong lied about his wrongdoing and therefore did not deserve the benefit of the eight-year limit.

Yes, we get it, whatever Lance says is true and whatever USADA says is a iie no matter how much evidence supports USADA.

Click to expand...

What evidence? Armstrong has not failed a drugs test according to the official rules. He doesn't have to prove anything. The USADA has to do that, and getting plea bargained cyclists to make outlandish claims of "someone did this" and "someone saw that" isn't evidence to get someone found guilty, or at least it never should be.

After having read some of that 200+ pages report and a few of the affidavits, I really do think Armstrong doped. I was on the fence previously.

But I think labeling Armstrong a cheat is only half the story and a tragic one as well. Let's not forget the entire pelothon (or very close to it) was also doped up.

It is tragic because I really think without doping, he could have still won a few TDFs. Doping helps, but legally winning the general category in the TDF still requires plenty of planning, preparation and strategy.

After having read some of that 200+ pages report and a few of the affidavits, I really do think Armstrong doped. I was on the fence previously.

But I think labeling Armstrong a cheat is only half the story and a tragic one as well. Let's not forget the entire pelothon (or very close to it) was also doped up.

It is tragic because I really think without doping, he could have still won a few TDFs. Doping helps, but legally winning the general category in the TDF still requires plenty of planning, preparation and strategy.

The Lance doping scandal is front page of the hard copy of the New York Times. I'll get around to reading it when I have a chance.

If you go through some of the earlier posts, there is evidence which suggests that doping while widespread, was not universally practiced.

We will never know if he could've won any tours without doping. He started doping very early on, but I'd rather not go into the grisly details.

Click to expand...

We will never know what percentage of pro cyclists actually doped during those years. But from what I gather (from all the affidavits and ex pro cyclist opinion) it is probably more than 90%. And if that is true then doping was as good as universal.

According to George Hincapie's affidavit, doping was widespread enough to cause the peloton to suddenly get very very quick in 1995 which is the time when Armstrong allegedly finally snapped and made the decision to start doping.

Those who didn't dope ended up quiting the sport or getting dropped real quick.

Frankly if he was not such a jerk, I would not really care - the fact that he denied it so vehemently, called everyone else liars, attacked and intimidated everyone and was so sanctimoneous was the problem.

Be a man, say everyone else was doing it, I had to and apologize. Would have been much cheaper and everyone would have gotten over it

After having read some of that 200+ pages report and a few of the affidavits, I really do think Armstrong doped. I was on the fence previously.

But I think labeling Armstrong a cheat is only half the story and a tragic one as well. Let's not forget the entire pelothon (or very close to it) was also doped up.

Click to expand...

This is one of the biggest pro-Lance arguments: if everyone was doping, then it was a level playing field, and Armstrong really did deserve to win after all.

But the USADA report argues that the playing field wasn't level, even if doping was widespread. The culture of doping favored those with more money and resources. Armstrong hired Ferrari, the acknowledged top man with respect to cutting edge doping, and paid him over a million dollars; this gave him a distinct advantage over other riders, even the ones already taking EPO. Armstrong helped, encouraged, and bullied his teammates to dope in the same manner as himself, again giving him an advantage over other riders, even the ones already doping. Armstrong also donated large amounts of money to the UCI, effectively putting that organization in his pocket--something that less wealthy riders from other teams would not have been able to do.

I read many of the comments to the Times articles, and person after person writes that everyone was doping at the time and therefore we should leave Armstrong alone. The point isn't that doping equalized all the riders in the peloton, and Lance won because he was the fittest and most skilled of those doped riders. The point is that Lance was wealthy, famous, and strong-willed enough to hire the best doctors and put in place the most sophisticated doping program, and this, in effect, allowed him to win WITHOUT being the fittest or most skilled rider.

I read many of the comments to the Times articles, and person after person writes that everyone was doping at the time and therefore we should leave Armstrong alone. The point isn't that doping equalized all the riders in the peloton, and Lance won because he was the fittest and most skilled of those doped riders. The point is that Lance was wealthy, famous, and strong-willed enough to hire the best doctors and put in place the most sophisticated doping program, and this, in effect, allowed him to win WITHOUT being the fittest or most skilled rider.

Click to expand...

It makes Lance Armstrong look like something out of The Godfather, which shows how completely farcical this whole thing is.

What evidence? Armstrong has not failed a drugs test according to the official rules. He doesn't have to prove anything. The USADA has to do that, and getting plea bargained cyclists to make outlandish claims of "someone did this" and "someone saw that" isn't evidence to get someone found guilty, or at least it never should be.

It's complete nonsense. We all know who won those 7 Tour de Frances from 1999-2005, having beaten off cancer that had given him a very low chance of survival. The USADA asks us to believe that Armstrong, was not only a taker of PEDs while simultaneously passing hundreds of drug tests and winning 7 Tour de France titles, but was also the leader of pushing PEDs onto other cyclists, and that the evidence of the witnesses who accuse Armstrong (including PED users like Hamilton and Landis) is sacred, despite the plea bargaining scandals that dominate the US justice system.

We will never know what percentage of pro cyclists actually doped during those years. But from what I gather (from all the affidavits and ex pro cyclist opinion) it is probably more than 90%. And if that is true then doping was as good as universal.

L.A. seemed such nice guy. its sad. We have all been taken for a ride. They should make a statement at next year Tour de France.
Cermonies for all the guys who were 2nd to LA every one of those years should be given the trophy and the guy 3rd get 2nd and the guy 4th gets 3rd place on the podium with flags and athems .. the whole 9 yards..

L.A. seemed such nice guy. its sad. We have all been taken for a ride. They should make a statement at next year Tour de France.
Cermonies for all the guys who were 2nd to LA every one of those years should be given the trophy and the guy 3rd get 2nd and the guy 4th gets 3rd place on the podium with flags and athems .. the whole 9 yards..

We will never know what percentage of pro cyclists actually doped during those years. But from what I gather (from all the affidavits and ex pro cyclist opinion) it is probably more than 90%. And if that is true then doping was as good as universal.

Click to expand...

I'll try, but it could take a while to find those guys

That award ceremony is going to look pretty strange:

"Originally finishing 3,456th in 2002, but now recognized as the TRUE Tour champion for that year, please put your hands together for........"

Well , that is precisely the whole point of it all. To show what a low its been at and by showing and admitting that , then be able to move on.
Strong signal. Very strong.

Click to expand...

OK, but finding the 3 riders that weren't doping in the 2002 Tour AND getting everyone to agree that these 3 guys were for sure not doping and everyone else was doping might take until 2077 to clear up (and of course, everyone involved will be dead). But, as you say, in 2077 we will be able to send a CLEAR message.

OK, but finding the 3 riders that weren't doping in the 2002 Tour AND getting everyone to agree that these 3 guys were for sure not doping and everyone else was doping might take until 2077 to clear up (and of course, everyone involved will be dead). But, as you say, in 2077 we will be able to send a CLEAR message.

Strong signal. Very strong.

Click to expand...

Then so be it.
This is a way of admitting the disgrace and then getting on with it.

For the pro Armstrong people, what would it take for them to believe he was guilty?

Click to expand...

A failed drug test according to the official rules of cycling. This has never happened in the case of Armstrong. Speaking of which, those who believe that Armstrong is guilty didn't need much convincing, despite the plea bargaining stuff that's gone on. Plea bargaining is basically blackmail and per-verting the course of justice. They believe that not only did Armstrong beat cancer and win 7 Tour de Frances, but that he did it while taking PEDs and avoiding testing positive, whilst also pushing drugs on other cyclists (without being discovered!). It's utterly ridiculous.

Also, people mention the cyclists who have "spoken out" (although not the plea bargaining bit), yet they don't mention those cyclists who've supported Armstrong and said that he never offered them drugs, such as Roger Hammond. How strange that the USADA didn't even ask Hammond's opinion! I wonder why? And if the USADA's case is so strong, why did the federal investigation get dropped due to lack of evidence?

A failed drug test according to the official rules of cycling. This has never happened in the case of Armstrong. Speaking of which, those who believe that Armstrong is guilty didn't need much convincing, despite the plea bargaining stuff that's gone on. Plea bargaining is basically blackmail and per-verting the course of justice. They believe that not only did Armstrong beat cancer and win 7 Tour de Frances, but that he did it while taking PEDs and avoiding testing positive, whilst also pushing drugs on other cyclists (without being discovered!). It's utterly ridiculous.

Also, people mention the cyclists who have "spoken out" (although not the plea bargaining bit), yet they don't mention those cyclists who've supported Armstrong and said that he never offered them drugs, such as Roger Hammond. How strange that the USADA didn't even ask Hammond's opinion! I wonder why? And if the USADA's case is so strong, why did the federal investigation get dropped due to lack of evidence?

A failed drug test according to the official rules of cycling. This has never happened in the case of Armstrong. Speaking of which, those who believe that Armstrong is guilty didn't need much convincing, despite the plea bargaining stuff that's gone on. Plea bargaining is basically blackmail and per-verting the course of justice. They believe that not only did Armstrong beat cancer and win 7 Tour de Frances, but that he did it while taking PEDs and avoiding testing positive, whilst also pushing drugs on other cyclists (without being discovered!). It's utterly ridiculous.

Also, people mention the cyclists who have "spoken out" (although not the plea bargaining bit), yet they don't mention those cyclists who've supported Armstrong and said that he never offered them drugs, such as Roger Hammond. How strange that the USADA didn't even ask Hammond's opinion! I wonder why? And if the USADA's case is so strong, why did the federal investigation get dropped due to lack of evidence?

Click to expand...

A failed drug test is definitive? Marion Jones never failed a drug test and she fessed up . I have a sneaky suspicion that even if he did fail a drug test, some supporters would still believe he was innocent. e.g. the sample was tampered with, my body produces unusual amounts of XYZ.

And if the USADA's case is so strong, why did the federal investigation get dropped due to lack of evidence?[/QUOTE]

Why? Why did the feds drop it? Because in an election year, Obama didn't want the federal attorneys going after an American hero. Paul Ryan would have had a field day with that last night in the VP debates. Even now after all this evidence, people are *****ing that USADA is using up tax payer money for something in the distant past (although I haven't seen anything that USADA has gone over budget for this case- Since my tax dollars are already going to them, I'd rather have them work). When Holder found out what was going on, they realized politically it was too charged to pursue. The logical decision was to pass on the info to USADA and let them be the bad guys

Behind the riders, the drugs and the secrets there were the women.
And they made choices, too, choices that may have set in motion the unraveling of the greatest doping scandal in the history of sport.

In 2004, Lance Armstrong's most trusted teammate George Hincapie wrote an email to the man who used to be Armstrong's
closest friend on the bike circuit, Frankie Andreu.
It said: "I cannot understand how you can just sit around and let betsy try and take down the whole team."
It was a reference to Andreu's wife, Betsy, who had started doing something no one on the drug-tainted team had apparently ever done before. She started questioning what was going on and even speaking out.

"In the beginning, I was scared," said Betsy Andreu from her home in Dearborn, Mich. "But I thought this is bull and
something has to be done about it. I had to get the truth out."
The U.S. Anti Doping Agency case against disgraced Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong is filled with sworn affidavits, statement after statement by riders admitting their drug use on the bike.
The case includes stories of wives being in on the scandal. Armstrong's ex-wife Kristin is said to have told people they called the blood booster EPO "butter" because they kept it with the butter in their refrigerator.
According to the USADA file: "Later at the World Championships at Valkenberg in the Netherlands the U.S. riders arrived at
their tent near the start of the race to find that Armstrong had asked his wife Kristin to wrap cortisone tablets in tin foil for him and his teammates. Kristin obliged. ... One of the riders remarked 'Lance's wife is rolling joints.'"
The Andreus had been close friends with the Armstrongs, often dining together and socializing between races. They were neighbors in Europe and spent huge amounts of time together.
Betsy Andreu grew uncomfortable as she started to hear more and more talk of drug use and says she asked Kristin Armstrong about it.

"It's a necessary evil," Armstrong's then wife said according to the case file.
But while some chose to look the other way, Armstrong's former assistant Emma O'Reilly, was bothered by her conscience too, despite having respect for what Armstrong could do as an athlete and a leader.O'Reilly faced enormous backlash and threats when she first broke her silence to a journalist from the Sunday Times in 2003, recounting stories of purchasing makeup to cover up a bruise from injections on Armstrong and occasions where she believed she was being asked to be a drug courier for the team.

Her sworn affidavit to the USADA includes detailed anecdotes, including this one: "Lance gave me a small package wrapped in plastic. He explained that the package contained some things that he was uneasy traveling with and had not wanted to throw away at the team hotel. He then asked me if I would be willing to dispose of it for him on the way to my next destination. From Lance's explanation and the shape and feel of the package I assumed that the package contained syringes."

O'Reilly has said she never wanted to bring down Armstrong, but was bothered by what was going on and simply didn't want to lie about it.
As a result she says Armstrong sued her and, in her words, "terrorized" her.
The Women Who Put the Brakes on Lance Armstrong
But it was Betsy Andreu who never stopped pressing. When she and Frankie were closest with Armstrong and visiting him during his cancer treatment, she says Armstrong told a doctor in their presence about a number of performance enhancing drugs he'd been using.

She was enraged -- mainly at her then fiance Frankie -- and vowed not to marry him if he didn't promise that he wouldn't use drugs.
She was afraid of possible side effects and health problems with the man she planned to have children with. But she says she didn't go public with the information, telling it instead under oath after being subpoenaed to testify in a civil case Armstrong was embroiled in.

Betsy Andreu says that truth telling -- along with the pressure she put on Frankie to stop doping (he had admitted to using EPO while racing) -- cost them dearly. She says Frankie's future in cycling was permanently damaged by the couple's steadfast determination to go up against the sport's code of silence, as foreshadowed in this email from Lance Armstrong to Frankie Andreu years earlier, now included in the USADA case file. "By helping to bring me down is not going to help y'alls situation at all. There is a direct link to all of our success here and I suggest you remind her of that."
"It would have been nice to have company," Betsy Andreu now says. "It boggles my mind that women were OK with their husbands putting this crap in their bodies. We could have made a lot more money, but it just wasn't worth it. And I know I've never cheated anybody out of anything. I know I've always told the truth."

"Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense.